• frank
    5.1k
    So, e.g. the billionaire has a right to his/her money and assets, and that right should not be restricted, legally or otherwise, because it is a right.Ciceronianus the White

    Holding that a person has a natural right to life, liberty, and property doesn't mean the state can't tax its citizens. We agree to allow the state to enforce order, build a military, protect workers, and tax billionaires.

    I'm not speaking as a champion of the concept of rights, I'm just trying to distinguish between the concept itself and the ways it ends up being used to subvert democracy and harm society. Corruption doesn't show that form of the system is bad. It just shows that we're assholes.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.9k
    As I said, one is obligated (has a duty) to live a particular way--i.e. virtuously--to live according to nature. That doesn't mean someone else has a right to one's virtuous conduct.Ciceronianus the White

    Whenever one has a duty to another person, that other person has a right, specifically a claim right, because a claim right just is a duty owed to you by someone else. (In contrast with a liberty right, which is just the absence of having any contrary duty yourself).

    Maybe not all duties are to other people, but when they are...
  • Ciceronianus the White
    976
    Legal rights may be subject to restrictions, yes. I don't think I've questioned the existence of legal rights, nor have I claimed there should be no legal right. I doubt anybody thinks government has non-legal right to tax. I may just misunderstand you, though.
  • Ciceronianus the White
    976
    Whenever one has a duty to another person, that other person has a right, specifically a claim right, because a claim right just is a duty owed to you by someone else. (In contrast with a liberty right, which is just the absence of having any contrary duty yourself).

    Maybe not all duties are to other people, but when they are...
    Pfhorrest

    Just what "duty" means is certainly significant, as is the question whether a duty implies a right or whether a right requires a duty. I think claiming duties exist only where a right exists is misguided.

    Some say we owe a duty to our children, or our parents. Does that mean they have a right to certain conduct on our part? Does our obligation to them exist because of their rights, or is taking care of them simply what a good person would do? If I have a duty it means I should or should not do something. I should be good; I should not be bad. Do I have a duty to be good because everyone else has a right to my good behavior, or a duty not to be bad because everyone else has a right that I not be bad? I don't think so. I have no right to good conduct on the part of the rest of humanity.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.9k
    I think claiming duties exist only where a right exists is misguided.Ciceronianus the White

    I didn’t say that, I said the other way around. Rights are analyzable in terms of duties.
  • frank
    5.1k
    Legal rights may be subject to restrictions, yes. I don't think I've questioned the existence of legal rights, nor have I claimed there should be no legal right. I doubt anybody thinks government has non-legal right to tax. I may just misunderstand you, though.Ciceronianus the White

    I think legal rights are restrictions on what people can do or what laws can be passed.

    You give up some of your natural right to liberty through the social contract.
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.